I don't understand your stance on this. While it is true that corruption is not a party affiliated phenomenon, the things ngfm talked about are well known.
Telling people to show up at town hall meetings or political rallies with guns.
You missed this? http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/17/obama.protest.rifle/
It happened more than once. It was common at other teabagger protests.http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0419/Are-tea-party-rallies-given-preferential-treatment-by-policehttp://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/why-do-tea-partiers-get-parade-around-armed-while-peaceful-protests-are-met-tanks
Hiring incompetent folks for government positions based almost entirely on their connections...
I agree, both sides do this. However, GWB seemed to have been the world champion of this. I do not remember a worse appointee than Heckuvajob Brownie. Though I suppose arguments could be made for Cheney, Rummy, Wolfowitz, Feith, Gonzales, Rove, or anyone else from this list:http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2009/01/17/34948/bush-43-worst/
repubs have made it their habit to appoint people to organizations that then make the organization do the exact opposite of what it was intended to do. Bush used the Labor department to kill unions and crush workers. He used the EPA to allow pollution. Etc.
Destroying organizations and people's careers with fake videos and lies on blogs.
Yeah, this is completely exclusive to the right wing. ACORN was destroyed over a lie.
The same lying little shit got Shirley Sherrod fired and she was completely innocent.
The same little shit, James O'Keefe, has made several of these videos.
Joking about bombing countries after not finding any WMD's.
You missed this? http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/mar/26/usa.iraq
It's still on youtube.
Getting into government with the express purpose of ripping off the public.
Both side do this to some extent, but that the gop represents the kleptocrats to a far greater extent is so blindingly obvious, I cannot see how you can even consider arguing.
Taking money from warlords and dictators.
Actually, the gop gives
money to them. Ex: Donnie Rumsfeld handing a suitcase of cash over to Saddam Hussein a'way back in the 80s.
Accepting benefits and subsidies while voting against them for other people.
Demonstrabley true. See also: Lindsey "prettiest debutant in the senate" Graham.
Supporting programs (like abstinence curricula and "pray away the gay" counseling) that do not work, as long as they make people vote for you (and make money for your friends).
obviously true. She gave examples.
Making racist, sexist, anti-immigrant and antigay remarks into acceptable normal discourse
Fake outrage over sexual misconduct, esp. gay--as long as it is done by the other side.
Obviously (and hilariously) true. there is a long, long list of repub sex scandals. While it is true dems do it too, they do it at a far lower rate. And they are not hypocrites about it by touting "family values" bullshit as a cornerstone of their campaigns.
Changing the rules for voting so as to disenfranchise as many eligible people as possible.
I don't know how you could miss this. It is big news in alabama this week.
Making veiled or not so veiled threats of physical violence against political opponents (remember the "Second Amendment remedies" threats in case votes did not turn out the way people liked?)
obviously true. Example provided. Don't forget Carabou Barbie talking about having representative Gabby Giffords in her crosshairs. Gabby was later shot in the head.
Being proudly ignorant of science.
This is so well documented I'm just going to assume you agree here.
Accusing people of being traitors for questioning the [repub] president's politics. Isn't it amazing how it is no longer unpatriotic to "publicly criticize a sitting president while we have troops on foreign soil"?
I'm going to stop there with ngfm's post. I just want to go back to something you said.
In order for me to come to an understanding of what's going on I like to look at details in as unbiased a way as possible. For me, that means I have to try to level the playing field. I can't start out assuming that one side of the divide is inherently wrong or evil. In my mind I must square them off as equal.
This sounds reasonable, on the surface, but it is a mistake. They are not equal. They have a history. And when one side has repeatedly proven to be a bunch of liars who support and are supported by truly evil men like the Koch's and Don Blankenship, trying to start from even is a bad, bad mistake.
So, I sometimes find myself defending the indefensible or slinging mud in the other direction in order to achieve balance before I can begin the conversation in earnest...
Do you do that when trying to decide matters about gods? Would it make any sense at all to try to start off by making science and creationism "even"?
As always, I blame the media for this nasty turn due to their habit of selecting snippets from congressional hearings and testimony to bolster their position against the other party.
Does this not strike you as a bias? Why would you not start off trying to look at the media in an unbiased way? Maybe it's not the media's fault? Maybe those snippets are representative of the tenor?